Und als Draufgabe:
Am 11. November kam ein Papier des EU Council zu folgendem Thema raus:
Council Conclusions on the Adoption of an EU Strategy Against Illicit Firearms, Small Arms & Light Weapons & Their Ammunition - Council Conclusions (19 November 2018) https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV ... 856981.pdfFU hat sich erlaubt, gestern eine entsprechende Analyse und Stellungnahme dazu auszuschicken (kopiert von deren FB Seite):
Firearms United Network position on Council Conclusion on the Adoption of an EU Strategy Against Illicit Firearms, Small Arms & Light Weapons & Their Ammunition (November 19, 2018)
General comment:
The document presented by the Council can be understood twofold. On the one hand, in general and declarative aspect it touches on well-defined threat if illicit gun trafficking. On the other hand, while describing specific details and actions it includes into the analysis legal documents which influence law abiding citizens. Such an action is ineligible in the best case. This approach makes the actual intentions of the document doubtful at the best.
Agreeing that illicit gun trafficking of SALW (Small Arms & Light Weapons) is a serious problem requiring international cooperation to combat, we are very concerned with mixing it with legal firearms ownership by law abiding citizens.
It begs to ask a question how serious European Institutions are in combating illicit gun trafficking and how much they use it as a cheap excuse to enforce legal changes aimed at legal firearms owners and shooting sport clubs.
It should be noted that the authors never presented any connections between legal and illegal firearms trade, but simply presented it as an axiom which doesn’t require any justification at all. Based on this, it seems to be a safe assumption that the above narrative is simply a farfetched manipulation.
Comments to appendix Council Conclusions on Adoption of an EU Strategy against illicit firearms, Small Arms & Light Weapons and their ammunition
It is a big surprise to observe an attempt to combine illicit fireamrs proliferation with disturbances in ‘sustainable growth’. SALW is named as one of the main obstacles in achieving goals like “peace, justice and strong institutions, poverty reduction, economic growth, health, gender equality, and safe cities and communities”. It is also appalling to observe an attempt to correlate between illicit firearms trafficking and regulations of legal firearms ownership by law abiding citizens.
In this context, statements like “to promote accountability and responsibility with regard to the legal arms trade” seems like a euphemism. Taking into consideration the fact that each EU Member State has professional systems of ensuring internal security, which consists of police, military and special forces, one can only wonder why someone tries to put all the blame on SALW.
The authors never presented reliable political diagnosis on the problems with problems with sustainable growth. They suggest that the crisis has been caused not by wrong political decisions nor scarce democratic support, but inanimate objects, like firearms.
What is extremely outrageous i san attempt to suggest existence of a link between legal gun ownership and armed violence, criminal activities and enhance terrorist attacks’ outcomes. It shows complete lack of understanding of the problem presented by the Council, as all available scientific research prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no connections between realm of legal gun ownership and reals of criminals or terrorists.
Based on the above it seems to be a safe assumption to state that the reason to shape the document in this manner is to increase the feeling of insecurity in the readers. Also, an indirect goal of this approach seems to be condemning and stigmatising of legal firearms owners. It is clearly observed in attempt to equalize legal firearms owners with criminals and terrorists, coupled with introduction of collective responsibility (based on the way the proposal to change regulation are being shaped), while at the same time presumption of innocence seems to be rejected.
It is worth to note that the Council reminds EU strategy from 2005, although at the introduction says clearly that the said strategy didn’t work. And then proposals included in the document reinforce this non-working strategy and demands it being repeated.
Comments to “Securing Arms, Protecting Citizens’:
Introduction shows that the authors’ concentrate mostly on terrorist threats which hurt international peace, humanitarian actions, stabilising actions in Africa and internal security of EU. Accepting this context, it is really hard to understand why it is being suggested that the proper solution can be achieved by later mentioned Directive 91/477 which regulates legal possession of firearms. It is very farfetched to state that introduction of further restrictions in legal firearms and ammunition purchase will improve humanitarian efforts in Africa. \
3
The next paragraph describes connections between organized crime and terrorists, which exist without any doubt. I would like to point you towards the clear statement on illegal origin of firearms used on recent terrorist attacks across Europe. This is a clear contradiction to Council’s position from 2015 and onwards, when Council used terrorist attacks as an excuse to introduce irrational restrictions on legal firearms owners via changes to Directive 91/477 voted in 2017.
On page 7 you can find the major manipulation of the whole document. The authors suggest that legal firearms transferred to illicit trafficking can’t be differentiated from military grade weapons which means that it should be treated in the same way as military grade weapons. The authors ‘forget’ to present any statistic in support of such a movement at all (legal firearms transferred to illicit market). And make no mistake. There is no support evidence presented, as such a movement does not exist.
Comments to „Countering illicit firearms and SALW: Objectives and Actions”:
Using the before presented thought train, the authors present very broad definition of SALW, which includes even revolvers. Such classification may seem meaningless at the first glance, but in practical terms it has far-reaching consequences. It suggests that such firearms should be available to military forces ONLY. The authors suggest that SALW is a separate firearms category, separate from firearms accessible for civilian use.
It comes as a surprise to see assumptions made at pt 2.2.1. „Control on firearms and SALW manufacturing”, where authors claim that one of the biggest threats to combat illicit firearms trafficking is „ the illicit re-activation of deactivated firearms, craft production and the illicit conversion of alarm or signal guns designed for blank ammunition or flobert guns, the illicit conversion of ammunition and the illicit use of reloading tools”.
Using simple terms, it means levelling light rocket launchers and grenade launchers with sport firearms
The above statement is the clear indication of lack of technical knowledge of the authors or decisive insincerity and camouflaged intentions of the authors.
Point 2.1.5 „Stronger EU norms” makes it clear that the last year update to Directive 91/477 was just a prelude to introduce further restrictions. It is clearly stated that Council would like to introduce further firearms marking scheme to increase firearms’ traceability. We need to remember that Council talks about illicit firearms here. It remains an open question how further regulations of legally held firearms will increase traceability of illicit firearms, especially in context of Africa, which authors concentrated upon in earlier parts of the document.
Equally strange ideas can be found at point 2.2.3 „Secure SALW and ammunition stockpile management”. This section claims that SALW and ammunition stockpiles in Member States has such low security levels, that allows for transfer from the said stockpiles into illicit market. It means that Member States do not execute proper control over SALW and ammunition stockpiles. Which one more time begs for reconsideration if the before mentioned Directive 91/477 is the proper control measure.
Point 2.2.4 “Responsible disposal of SALW and their ammunition” is also very controversial. Council suggest that SALW and ammunition surplus should be destroyed. The text does not provide any guidance of what stockpile levels are sufficient and what consist a surplus. So it seems as a safe assumption that the European bodies would like to have a say in this respect on case by case basis.